AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future of I-64 in Louisville  (Read 798 times)

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 11962
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:42:12 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2021, 09:40:23 AM »

I was just thinking: has there been any talk in Louisville about putting I-64 through a tunnel with a park on top of it, much like with the "Big Dig" in Boston? Why or why not?

Is a tunnel right next to a river even possible?

Theoretically, yes.  The Vieux Carre Freeway in New Orleans (the original I-310) had a short tunnel section built next to the Mississippi River (now part of Harrah's parking garage).  There's a part of NJ 29 in Trenton that is partially in a tunnel next to the Delaware River.
Logged

SP Cook

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2336
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:33 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2021, 10:30:37 AM »

These “freeway removal” groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16774
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 09:24:54 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2021, 11:53:23 AM »

It's as bad of an idea as the third Louisville beltway that's actually under serious consideration.
I’m really hoping that the third Louisville beltway idea dies down quicker than the proposed “I-875” Cincinnati outer beltway from about 2 decades ago. There’s no way a metro area with a population of 1.4 million needs three beltways.

That seems to be the wet dream of developers in Campbell County, Ky., and the east side of Cincinnati.

I can see the utility in building something from the I-71/I-75 split to tie into I-471. It would make a good reroute for through I-71 traffic and could serve as a relief route for the Brent Spence Bridge in conjunction with the Norwood Lateral.

Last I heard, Ohio/ODOT had pretty much killed the eastern beltway while Kentucky interests were still pushing it.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12615
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:19:55 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2021, 12:50:18 PM »

These “freeway removal” groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.
You never know.  The Inner Loop removal push in Rochester seemed that way up until about a month or two before demolition began - and even a good chunk of that time was only there because that was the year Buffalo got seven feet of snow all at once, so the equipment was delayed getting in.  These things can move fast once they finally get traction at the political level.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8519
  • Last Login: Today at 10:50:19 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #29 on: October 22, 2021, 01:00:09 PM »

These “freeway removal” groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.
You never know.  The Inner Loop removal push in Rochester seemed that way up until about a month or two before demolition began - and even a good chunk of that time was only there because that was the year Buffalo got seven feet of snow all at once, so the equipment was delayed getting in.  These things can move fast once they finally get traction at the political level.
(See also Exit 3 on the Northway)
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2021, 01:02:02 PM »

These “freeway removal” groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.
You never know.  The Inner Loop removal push in Rochester seemed that way up until about a month or two before demolition began - and even a good chunk of that time was only there because that was the year Buffalo got seven feet of snow all at once, so the equipment was delayed getting in.  These things can move fast once they finally get traction at the political level.
The inner loops removal isn't really comparable here. If I remember correctly the inner loops traffic counts were not that high anyway. (And mind you I liked the idea of killing the inner loop)
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM »

No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.
Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2021, 01:04:03 PM »

It's as bad of an idea as the third Louisville beltway that's actually under serious consideration.
I’m really hoping that the third Louisville beltway idea dies down quicker than the proposed “I-875” Cincinnati outer beltway from about 2 decades ago. There’s no way a metro area with a population of 1.4 million needs three beltways.

That seems to be the wet dream of developers in Campbell County, Ky., and the east side of Cincinnati.

I can see the utility in building something from the I-71/I-75 split to tie into I-471. It would make a good reroute for through I-71 traffic and could serve as a relief route for the Brent Spence Bridge in conjunction with the Norwood Lateral.

Last I heard, Ohio/ODOT had pretty much killed the eastern beltway while Kentucky interests were still pushing it.
I have no idea why this beltway is being proposed. Or the one in Louisville. Can someone explain this? Seems like overkill.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8519
  • Last Login: Today at 10:50:19 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM »

No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.
Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.
London has tunnels under the Thames...
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2021, 01:12:21 PM »

No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.
Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.
London has tunnels under the Thames...
Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.
Logged

CardInLex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 125
  • Location: Louisville, KY
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:51 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8519
  • Last Login: Today at 10:50:19 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2021, 01:15:59 PM »



No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.
Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.
London has tunnels under the Thames...
Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2021, 01:16:39 PM »



No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.
Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.
London has tunnels under the Thames...
Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.

 fair point. :-D also remember america is bad at making tunnels affordable
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2021, 01:18:50 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

 :-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.
Logged

cabiness42

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3743
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Munster, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 10:07:38 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #39 on: October 22, 2021, 01:21:47 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

 :-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2021, 01:25:51 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

 :-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...
Logged

Chrysler375Freeway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Location: Warren, Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:55 AM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2021, 02:06:19 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

 :-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...
It carries lots of traffic. And there's development along both 64 and the Watterson. The idea to remove 264 would never gain traction among Louisville residents. Removing 64 never gained traction. Removing 264 definitely will not be gaining traction anytime soon, despite more people moving to the suburbs and working from home nowadays.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3577
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:44:24 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2021, 02:07:55 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

 :-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...
It carries lots of traffic. And there's development along both 64 and the Watterson. The idea to remove 264 would never gain traction among Louisville residents. Removing 64 never gained traction. Removing 264 definitely will not be gaining traction anytime soon, despite more people moving to the suburbs and working from home nowadays.

removing 264 sounds as crazy is removing 465  :-D
Logged

Chrysler375Freeway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Location: Warren, Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:55 AM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2021, 02:11:01 PM »

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)…

1) I would support the “8664” initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new “86-264” group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

 :-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...
It carries lots of traffic. And there's development along both 64 and the Watterson. The idea to remove 264 would never gain traction among Louisville residents. Removing 64 never gained traction. Removing 264 definitely will not be gaining traction anytime soon, despite more people moving to the suburbs and working from home nowadays.

removing 264 sounds as crazy is removing 465  :-D
Or even removing the Southfield Freeway, even though it doesn't pass through Detroit proper.
Logged

SP Cook

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2336
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:33 PM
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2021, 02:15:47 PM »


Last I heard, Ohio/ODOT had pretty much killed the eastern beltway while Kentucky interests were still pushing it.

While I agree 100% relative to Cincinnati, which is not that big a city and not that fast growing of a metro area, this is not always the case.  The original idea of a beltway or bypass of a city was really a bypass.  A mostly rural road where motorists, and more importantly freight which did not need to interact with the particular metro, could skip it entirely and go on their journey.

Sixty plus years on, there are metros, such as Atlanta, where growth has pushed the developed part out to and well past the beltway.  There are cases where returning to the original principles and going further out in the country to get people who just want past the city into a separate stream can save lives, energy, and time.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16774
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 09:24:54 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2021, 09:50:19 PM »

Regarding the third Louisville beltway, there are a lot of issues on KY 44 between Shepherdsville (I-65) and Mt. Washington (US 31E/US 150). The road is two lanes, narrow, no turn lanes, and little room for expansion because of ROW issues and the explosive growth Bullitt County has seen since 1970. Various issues have been looked at and from what I understand, several options are on the table. There aren't a lot of spot improvements or major widenings that could be done along a lot of the existing roads because of the extreme cost of ROW acquisition and the disruptions it would cause (I have two first cousins who live on KY 44 east of I-65).

Best option would be to widen I-265 to three lanes.

As for the Cincinnati bypass, it's pretty much developers who are pushing it so there will be better access to property that's now located in rural areas.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1759
  • Last Login: Today at 06:30:29 PM
    • Bridges & Tunnels
Re: Future of I-64 in Louisville
« Reply #46 on: October 24, 2021, 11:29:23 AM »

As much as I would have preferred the interstates removed from downtown, it's not happening. There is an active proposal to bore a third tunnel through Cherokee Park to widen I-64 to six lanes east of downtown, too.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.